Jump to content

Atheist Experience 23.42 2019-10-06 with Matt Dillahunty & Don Baker


webmdave
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Admin

SHOW NOTES
In this episode of the Atheist Experience, we have Matt Dillahunty and Don Baker as co-hosts. While this episode is not a milestone show like Talk Heathen’s 100th episode, this episode should prove to be just as memorable. Why? Because Don is co-hosting, we love Don! Also Happy Birthday to Matt’s dad!
Before we jump into calls, a couple announcements and Don’s list of failures. Today’s topic: Ensoulment. Ensoulment and when the soul gets a body, it is nonsensical at best says Don. Theists and Christians say the soul is intentionally imperfect and created by God. But when do they get put into a body? Does it happen at conception or at first cell division? There are a lot of problems with ensoulment at conception, one being that 50% of fertilized eggs fail or don’t implant. Other problems include but are not limited to, science, chimeras, and developing identical twins! Does one twin go to hell without a soul? Do Chimeras have two souls?
Our first caller of the show today is Sean in Nebraska. Sean wonders why we atheists don’t believe in god? Why or why not? He continues to ask about how the Bible claims to be the work of god, how do we demonstrate or prove that it is true? Interestingly he agrees at the ancient age of the Earth, but the “testimonies” of the people in the Bronze age should be accepted. Matt questions his belief in this line of thinking.

Our next caller is Chloe from Maryland, She is beginning to have doubts about her faith after coming out LGBTQ. She also questions if it is normal to be angry after being challenged on belief? She is also struggling with the idea that after death there is nothing. Matt attempts to help her understand it’s important to live the one life we all have. (Carpe Diem Chloe!) https://www.recoveringfromreligion.org May help anyone who is struggling with similar issues like Chloe.

Next in the queue we have Nate in Alabama. He asks about the laws of logic & science and how would an atheist explain their existence? Matt explains they are non-physical and descriptive. Don chimes in and says it sounds like there is a false equivalency happening due to a lack of context.
Our next caller is Greg in Colorado. Whispers they can provide evidence for the existence of god and claims that 0 theists are arguing that god is physical and non-physical. Matt counters saying: Arguing for a conceptual god doesn’t mean that a god exists and the concept of a thing is not the thing. There seems to be a major conflict though, Greg is saying they’re an atheist, but is also claiming to be able to prove a god exists. Greg may be a bit confused, Matt recommends they collecting their thoughts and call back during another show.
Next up, Vik in Indiana. Family claims to have experienced a supernatural event and he wants advice on how to approach this story when he visits them. Can Matt and Don provide best practices on how to debunk this and explore the available resources on being a skeptic?
The caller following Vik is Stevie in NY. His questions were philosophical in nature. There are things we disagree about, but if there is an observable answer that we agree on, we should all get along. It’s not the topics we agree on that are troublesome, it’s the topics we disagree on where there are potential conflicts and pitfalls. Reminder to all though, don’t tell us what we believe, we will react negatively. AT-HEIST, phooey.
Next up, William in Arizona. Has questions about intelligent design, may be approaching the blind watchmaker fallacy. Having one watchmaker make you a watch can be inferred that a watch you happen upon may have been intelligently designed and created, yes we agree on that. William continues, What happens when humans guide the evolution of things or artificial selection? Does it rule out intelligent design or a creator? Matt and Don answers: Nobody made a species in the same way we make a watch. Arguing by analogy isn’t a great way to explain things.
Ready for some fireworks? Next we had Otangelo from Brazil. Oh boy. Questions why we answer “I don’t know.” Says “I don’t know” isn’t a justified answer due to the evidence provided. If you can demonstrate the truth of theism, then we can have a conversation. When Otangelo calls in, he claims god instead of “I don’t know” and says we lie about god when we say it. If we don’t know something, then I don’t know is the right answer and we don’t lie nor are we dishonest about it.
Afterwards the next caller is Jeff in Florida. Has a 6 year old child and she mentioned her non-belief to a friend. Needs advice on how to encourage his young daughter to talk with him about her friend’s theism and negative reaction to his daughter’s exclamation of atheism. Matt responded People believe different things, and some believe so strongly they could be construed as being mean. But at no point should the desire for friendship override her happiness as a person. Dale McGowan’s book “Parenting beyond belief” may help him traverse this prickly situation.
On deck, is Anonymous in Colorado. If I don’t believe in any theology, does that make me an atheist? Does the negation of theology make me an atheist? For some reason didn’t want to hear any answer from Matt and basically didn’t listen to Don. Quite a quick call… Shortest in AXP history?
Our final caller is Nicolas in Norway. Has a question about morality. Matt explains how the rules of chess can be fairly similar objectively to the rules of morality. There are objective rules we can make in reference to morality.
EXTERNAL LINKS (If needed or discussed during the show)
https://www.recoveringfromreligion.org
https://ffrf.org
http://clergyproject.org
https://www.seculartherapy.org/

View the full article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.